The Slaughterhouse Cases - 1873

The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), as they are collectively called, was a group of five legal cases from Louisiana that began in 1869 and eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court. This was during the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877), so named because it was a period of trying to incorporate the ex-Confederate states, their policies, and their people into the Union. Slaughterhouse dealt with the 14th Amendment, which was one of the Reconstruction Amendments along with 13th and the 15th.

The part of the 14th Amendment that we're concerned with right now is essentially an extension of the Bill of Rights; it says that all citizens are citizens of the USA and the state in which they live, and guarantees that they may all have the same rights laid out in the constitution, and says that the states may not interfere or take those rights away. This is called the Equal Protection Clause.

The Slaughterhouse

In 1869, the City of New Orleans created a corporation to move the slaughterhouse of the city. There was actually no legitimate slaughterhouse of New Orleans at the time, and butchers would just slaughter their hogs and such wherever they wanted to in the streets. The butchers, (all white by the way), would dispose of the waste and offal by simply dumping it in the Mississippi River upriver from the city. This water would then travel down the river, and you can imagine what it was full of, and eventually joined with the main water pipeline. All the blood, urine, and waste that the animals produced was feeding into the water supply of New Orleans, causing unhealthful conditions and being a contributing factor in many cholera outbreaks. Because this had been going on for too long and was clearly a problem, New Orleans, with support from the state, decided to create a corporation to create a new slaughterhouse that would be moved down river from the city. It even had a state inspector to make sure all the goings-on in the place complied. The company in charge of the slaughterhouse, Crescent City (for short), was given exclusive rights to New Orleans; no other companies were allowed to operate slaughterhouses in the city.

The butchers of New Orleans didn't like this at all. They argued that this new corporation was a monopoly and an "unfair practice." They even went as far as to say that it was, in fact, unconstitutional, since this new slaughterhouse took away their "privilege" of operating a slaughterhouse company, and so was detrimental to them because it took away their living. The Louisiana state courts ruled that the slaughterhouse was constitutional, and the butchers appealed to the Supreme Court, who dealt with it in 1872 and made their final decision on April 14th of the next year.

The Supreme Court Building

The Supreme Court returned with a 4/5 ruling that the Crescent City slaughterhouse was not unconstitutional, and did not violate the 14th Amendment because the 14th only applied to the rights of American citizenship, not "state citizenship." (Do you think of yourself as a citizen of your state? No? Well back then, that sentiment was not uncommon.) They said that the rights of American citizenship were only those expressly stated in the Constitution and everything else was left up to the states, however the states were not required to grant their 'citizens' special privileges, such as the right to open a slaughterhouse.The Supreme Court also stated that, contrary to the complaints of the butchers, nobody was being deprived of a way to make a living, since they would be allowed to continue their practice as long as it was on the property of the Crescent City Company.

Another and very important side of the ruling was that the 14th Amendment (along with the 13th and 15th) were passed to grant and protect the rights of ex-slaves (freedmen), and so could only be narrowly interpreted. In the eyes of the court majority, there was nothing in the 14th that stated that all ethnicities were to be granted the same economic rights and privileges by the states in which they lived. One of the justices, Samuel Miller, wrote the opinion for the case, and in it he drew a clear distinction between the rights of American citizenship verses state citizenship. In the opinion, he basically rejected the idea that the Federal Government could legislate on civil rights, and that the application of any rights not explicitly stated in the constitution would be completely up to the states for interpretation. What this opinion did was make the 14th Amendment essentially an insignificant addition to the constitution, totally robbed of meaning.

 Stephen J. Field

The Slaughterhouse decision and Miller's opinion severely weakened the application of the 14th Amendment for a time. The one dissenting vote on the case was cast by Stephen J. Field, a Supreme Court justice from California who strongly believed that the 14th Amendment was meant to be applied to all Americans, regardless of race or state. In 1937, long after Field's death in 1899, more than 60 years after the Slaughterhouse decision and the narrow interpretation of the 14th, the Supreme Court switched their majority decision over from Miller's opinion to Field's.

Tariff of Abominations - Tariff of 1828

New England textile manufacturers complained of British products being dumped on the market, so they wanted a higher tariff to protect their domestic products. Westerners wouldn't agree to this unless imported raw materials (especially wool) also had a tariff put on them. The tariff was revised, and a little more than half of New England opposed it. Many of those were merchants, who did not wish to pay a 62% rate on raw goods when they brought them into the country. The New Englanders who supported the tariff saw that the long term benefits, increasing America's industrial system and power, would be worth it.

The South was opposed to it almost entirely, with 50 out of 53 votes going against the tariff. Their cotton would be more expensive for Britain to import (so they would buy less), and the European goods that the South liked to buy would become more expensive. It was a lose-lose situation, they felt. The South lost money from decreased exports and more expensive imports. (Britain also lowered their imports of Southern cotton from abolitionist pressure.) On top of that, the economies of some of the older Southern states were also hurt by people moving towards the newer ones for better soil and more land.

The Nullification Crisis

The Nullification Crisis lasted from roughly 1832 - 1833. Before I talk about it directly, I'll start with some exposition (to set things up for you.)

(Yes, my use of the word "exposition" was intentional.)

After the War of 1812, British goods started flooding the American market. To protect and encourage American industry, the Tariff of 1816 was enacted. This made British goods more expensive so that people would buy American-made products instead. This tariff was great for the North especially, since it was well on its way to becoming the industrial hub of the nation. For the South the tariff wasn't too great; they were mostly agricultural and helping industry didn't help them too much, and since they bought many goods from Europe, they were afraid of angering the British (since they might make their own tariffs against Southern cotton) and it just made the things they liked to buy more expensive. Eventually much of the South decided to just go with the tariff for national interest; America needed it and it would probably be repealed in a few years, right?

Andrew Jackson, as pictured during his service in the War of 1812.

They were wrong. The tariff wasn't repealed. Southern cotton went to Britain, which gave America lots of money. With all this new money, industrialization could just get stronger in the North since it could be widely financed. The South didn't industrialize, while the North did. As industry and the North grew, people tried to get more protective tariffs to make it grow even more. The whole thing was a bit self-perpetuating.

There was another tariff in 1824 which basically raised the 1816 tariff rates. This was the first time that many Southerners (who had supported the 1816 tariff) actually began to out right oppose raising the tariff rate. Many believed that this new tariff was not in national interest, but sectional interest, favoring the North and hurting the South. States that were part of the original Southern colonies were also going through some tougher times, so the tariff wasn't exactly appreciated. Among the opposition to the tariff was then Vice President John C. Calhoun from South Carolina, who had previously supported the 1816 tariff in order to raise revenue for the country. Like many other Southerners, he believed that this tariff was an unfair burden on the South and was purely for the North's benefit. There was also some opposition in New England against it among traders. (This tariff was pretty sectional, so you can't really blame the opposition for getting annoyed with it.)

 This picture of Errol Flynn is unrelated to anything I have to say in this post.

In 1828 the tariff was raised again, by the then President J. Q. Adams. Many were angry enough about it to give it the name "the Tariff of Abominations." In the election of that year, Andrew Jackson won the presidency, and Calhoun ran for Vice President under him and (again) won the office. He had been assured that Jackson would not support the tariff, but when he did (thanks on part to his Northern party members), Calhoun became displeased. Over the course of Jackson's presidency, conflicts over various policies and such only made relations between the two of them worse, and the Tariff of Abominations and what ensued because of it pretty much became the final straw.

Frustrated, Calhoun went back to his plantation in South Carolina and wrote a pamphlet entitled "Exposition and Protest." In it, he endorsed and argued for the idea of nullification, which says that a state may nullify (choose to ignore) any federal law that it finds to be unconstitutional. (He also said that if a state should decide to nullify, then a vote could be held among the states and if 3/4 ruled that the law was not unconstitutional, the nullifying state would have to follow suit with the law.) Accordingly, because the Tariff of Abominations was so one sided, South Carolina had every right to nullify the tariff should it choose to.Calhoun also went further to suggest that states could secede from the Union if the federal government proved not to be acting in its best interests and only harming it.

A map showing if all the secessionist movements in our history had succeeded.

Here's an excerpt from the pamphlet. It sums up his thoughts on the 1828 tariff in brief:

"...the whole system of legislation imposing duties on imports, not for revenue, but the protection of one branch of industry at the expense of others, is unconstitutional, unequal, and oppressive, and calculated to corrupt the public virtue and destroy the liberty of the country...so partial are the effects of the system, that its burdens are exclusively on one side and its benefits on the other."

 John C. Calhoun: yes, he wore a cape..

Calhoun wrote this anonymously so as not to get himself into too much trouble just yet, since he had his eye on succeeding Jackson as president or getting the office some time or other, (which never happened and was never going to happen anyways once 1828 came along) but many people suspected that he had written it anyway. In case you were wondering, Exposition and Protest did not have an effect on the proceedings regarding the tariff, but it did irk Jackson. Although he liked small government and state's rights, he believed in the Union, and thought nullification and secession were treasonous things to do to it.  

By 1832, nullification had become a topic of national debate. To calm the situation down, a revised tariff was created, but South Carolina was still not happy with the tariff rate it had set; it was still too high. Later in that same year, South Carolina (Calhoun's home state) decided that it'd had enough, and passed the Ordinance of Nullification to effectively nullify the 1828 and 1832 tariffs. The Nullification Crisis had officially begun! *drum roll*

Look what I found...

Jackson was highly displeased with S.C., and he was a guy that you probably didn't want to annoy. In 1833 he issued the Force Bill which would allow the tariff money to be collected from South Carolina by any means necessary. He also sent in the military and warships into Charleston harbor just in case the message wasn't clear enough. The little state smirked, and nullified that bill too.

Meanwhile, some South Carolinians (among others) began to make some extreme rallies and movements in support of nullification that were a little radical and could possibly create a volatile situation. Calhoun was a bit unnerved by this, and with his anger against Andrew Jackson contributing to the decision, decided to resign as Vice President and go spearhead the nullification movement. He joined the Senate (where he would remain 'til the end of his days, almost literally), and formed the short lived Nullifier Party. (It merged with the Democratic Party in 1839.) 

On the same day that the Force Bill passed in 1833, Senator Henry Clay and Calhoun, now a senator himself, together authored the Compromise Tariff for a gradual reduction in tariff rates. South Carolina found this acceptable, and repealed the Ordinance of Nullification. Andrew Jackson also dropped the Force Bill, since South Carolina now intended to comply with federal law.

Amusingly, South Carolina kept the now-repealed Force Bill nullified, a fact which Jackson decided to ignore.

Bacon's Rebellion

Bacon's Rebellion took place in 1676 in Virginia Colony. The leader of the rebellion was Nathaniel Bacon, a wealthy tobacco planter. Why did he rebel? Was not the fact that his last name evokes the image of smoky crispy strips of goodness good enough for him?

I'm glad you asked. As a matter of fact, I'm here to help y'all find out.

Colonial times in all their fancy-coat-and-hat glory.

Virginia Colony was going through some tough times. Tobacco prices had sunk, and the colony faced competition from the Carolinas and Maryland. On top of that, England had barred trade with France for them, so they lost a whole market. Bad weather didn't help either.

When some Native Americans lead a mini-raid on someone's plantation, the Virginians decided to use them as a scapegoat for their troubles. A series of raids and violence went back and forth on either side, so Governor Berkley decided to pursue a policy of containment of the threat, and just build a bunch of forts. Settlers in the back-country questioned this plan's effectiveness, and many thought it was just an excuse to raise taxes. People didn't like Berkley much, and also accused him of appointing his friends to high government offices. Bacon lead some raids against the Native Americans, (even killing friendly groups), and was elected to the House of Burgesses for his efforts.

Nathaniel Bacon himself. 

Governor Berkley convened the HoB and when Bacon came, tried to have him arrested. This failed, and Bacon gathered his followers and coerced Berkley into allowing him continue his raids on Native Americans. Berkley agreed, and fled Jamestown to go raise a militia since Bacon had sort of taken over the Colony for a bit. Bacon died suddenly, and his rebellion collapsed without his leadership. Berkley came back to assume command, but was recalled to England (much to the delight of Virginia.)

Defending against Native Americans, although the colonists may have started this one...

Many joined Bacon's cause against Berkley and the Native Americans, including both black and white indentured servants. The economic situation hadn't been kind to them either, so they joined in the rebellion. For upper-class Virginians, seeing the indentured servants ban together and rebel was frightening, and what was especially frightening was the fact that they were black and white joined together.

This caused Virginia colony to start relying more on slave labor and being tougher on African-Americans, free or slave. Since indentured servants were unreliable in times like these (and because they were racist and didn't like blacks and whites joining together), Virginia decided it needed a safe, more permanent lower class of person. to work for them.

The French and Indian War - Proclamation of 1763

The name "French and Indian War" (is the name for the part of the Seven Year's War that happened in North America. (The Seven Year's War was a European thing, although parts of it took place overseas, mostly in colonized areas.) Calling it the French and Indian War may be deceiving, since the French and (many of) the Native Americans actually fought on the same side against Great Britain, and not against each other as it may sound. On top of that, the Seven Year's War actually lasted for 9 years; 1754-1763. You love that, don't you?

In North America, the whole thing got started because Europe was still feverishly trying to colonize, or at least expand and maintain power. Now France had laid claim to the Mississippi watershed area as well as the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes region, and had some forts and trading activity with the Native Americans going on. As time passed, the British colonies grew more prosperous, and people wanted to move out west over the Appalachian Mountains and set up shop in the rich Ohio Valley lands. The French weren't too happy with this British encroachments on "their" land, so they started building a string of forts to keep guard. Then, Britain built a couple of forts too; one in Oswego and the other in Halifax. (Oswego had started out a trading post below Lake Ontario, but was expanded to become a fort.)

British and French representatives met in Paris soon after, but no progress on the "who exactly has rights to the Ohio Valley, since the Native Americans obviously don't count" question was made. After that, France decided to just settle the situation by building even more forts even closer to British colonial soil, this time in Western Pennsylvania. At the same time, the governor of Virginia decided to start granting land in the Ohio Valley to Virginia citizens. To add to the trouble, a one George Washington decided to advise Britain to build a fort in a particularly nice location in the Ohio Valley, and so they did. Long story short, France captured it before it was finished, completed construction, and took it for their own. Washington then attacked the French, but he lost when re-enforcements came. Fort-wars then ensued for a while, until Britain finally decided it would be a good time to officially declare war in 1756.

The Native Americans (except the Iroquois Confederacy, who fought with Britain alongside some other tribes) sided with the French. France had a far more inclusive society in North America, and the Native Americans received less-meddling in their affairs on the part of France, and more friendliness and intermingling. The Native Americans would trade with the French, and fur trappers would actually bother to learn their languages, and sometimes even decided to marry the Native Americans too. In British society, things were decidedly less "chill;" they had an exclusive society. Things were more hostile, racist, and not as fair business wise with Native American-British relations, so understandably, most Native Americans decided to join France against Great Britain.

The war goes on, and Great Britain wins. The Native Americans aren't too happy, France gets kicked out of North America entirely, and ends up left with two small sugar islands. (Over Canada and the Ohio Valley, France decides to keep the sugar islands; this = importance of mercantilism!) Great Britain decides to raise the prices of goods sold to the Native Americans, and stops paying them for using forts on their land. They also stop giving exchanging gifts, which was an important and symbolic custom for the Native Americans, and they probably felt pretty offended that Britain just decided to stop it.

The Native Americans weren't feeling all that amiable towards the British, and when the prophet Neolin from a tribe in Delaware started preaching through ought the Great Lakes against materialism/alcohol/the English way of life, things didn't go well. On top of that, colonists had started to push further into Native American lands. The Ottawa war chief Pontiac, around the same time as Neolin was preaching, started a rebellion against the British and attacked colonists in the Ohio Valley; this was Pontiac's Rebellion (1763.) In response/anger, a group of colonists called the Paxton Boys in Western Pennsylvania attacked a peaceful group of Native Americans nearby and massacred them; partly out of racism and partly because they thought their government wasn't doing much to help them. Benjamin Franklin helped put an end to the killing by negotiating with the group, and was scathingly critical about their inhumane actions. Eventually, Great Britain decided to step in to end Pontiac's Rebellion, and did so, with the help of germ warfare in the form of smallpox infected blankets.

To ensure that something like that wouldn't happen again, the British government issued the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. This was an attempt to keep colonists out of the Ohio Valley, and out of trouble with the Native Americans. Colonists pretty much disregarded it, and moved westward anyways, angry at the British for placing this restriction on them. This was one of the first 'restrictive acts' that the British took against the colonists, and one that they became more resented for.

At the end of the French and Indian War, many British soldiers stayed in North America. Tensions increased between the colonists and the soldiers. Many colonists became disgusted/displeased with the behavior/attitudes/appearances of the soldiers, and felt that they had a more separate identity from them. The colonists also felt that Britain had under-appreciated the part that they had played in the fighting the war. During this time, a sense of common identity, separate from that of the British, became stronger, as well as resentment against Britain that would grow in the future. 

The Conflict of Slavery

After having been traded for food and supplies, the first slaves arrived in 1619 in Virginia Colony. The Congressional government (when it finally came into being) would not regulate slavery until 1787 with the Northwest Ordinance. Before then, slave policy had been regulated by individual colonies, like Georgia and Virginia. The Northwest Ordinance created the Northwest Territories in the Ohio River Valley + the Great Lakes area. It also banned slavery there, becoming the first act of the US government against slavery. (However, indentured servitude was still legal, and some people illegally kept their slaves anyways.)

Slaves working in Virginia Colony

In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase was acquired by president Thomas Jefferson. This addition more than doubled the size of the United States, and people eagerly began moving westward. People migrated mostly along horizontal lines; this meant that people from the South would move into western regions still in the southern part of the country, and people from the North moved into regions in the northern part of the country. By 1819, all the Northern states (thus far) had abolished slavery, but not so in the South. Thus as Southerners moved westward in search of new land, they carried slavery with them.

Butter yellow color is Louisiana Purchase, peachy-tan is the color of the USA before that. 

Darker hot chocolate brown belongs to other countries, like Spain and UK.

The Southern economy was highly agricultural, while the North's was working its way to becoming the industrial powerhouse of the nation. With the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney and its introduction into the market in the late 1790's,  cotton production because easier and cheaper. Since the crop was so profitable, the South started devoting more land to cotton, and brought over more slaves from Africa to pick it. As time went on, the South built a society structured on the plantation system that was highly dependent on agriculture, and the existence of slavery. The North becomes industrialized, and slavery is thrown out the window. Abolitionism grew out of the North, and would begin to pose a threat to the Southern system as time went on.

Slave traders loading slaves into harsh and cruel ships

In 1807, Congress abolishes US involvement in the international slave trade. Around this time, and even before and after it, states with large slave populations (like South Carolina) would make increasingly harsh and restrictive rules against slaves and black people. They felt threatened by the closing of the international slave trade for the US, and by slave rebellions in the US, as well as a successful one in Haiti where the slaves rose up and killed the French, and essentially kicked them out and formed their own country.


In 1819, Missouri was to become a state. Since there was an equal number of slave states and free states, people from both sides each wanted Missouri to have a slavery policy that would fit their ideas, so that they could have more power in Congress. The South was a minority in the House of Representatives, so they wanted to protect their power in the Senate. They also wanted to protect their way of life, and felt that since slaves were their legal property, Congress couldn't and shouldn't make laws against that. Northerners and abolitionists disagreed and wanted Missouri to be a free state.  Maine was also in line to become a state during this time.

The Missouri issue caused much controversy and friction between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was made to remedy it. Key in this compromise was the representative from Kentucky in the HoR (and later the Senate), Henry Clay. In this compromise, Missouri would be a slave state and Maine would be a free state. It also forbade any slavery anywhere in the USA above the 36th parallel, except at Missouri of course.

 Picture unrelated.

Over the next twenty years, the South increased its reliance on agricultural, cotton, and slave labor. As abolitionism and anti-expansion of slavery feelings grew in the North, they felt increasingly on edge and more anxious to protect slavery, which they called the "peculiar institution." From 1836 - 1844, supporters of slavery had various gag rules put into action in Congress. These rules prevented/hindered the discussion of slavery in Congress. This was done partly out of a fear that slavery would be threatened and weakened, and partly also because people thought that Congress wouldn't get anything done if they got into an endless argument about slavery. Tensions were mounting, and there was a lot of friction between Northern and Southern interests. The two major political parties, the generally pro-industrialization Whigs and the generally pro-agriculture Democrats, started splitting among sectional lines and becoming less and less national in support as time went on.

In 1846, the country becomes involved in the Mexican-American War.(You can read about that on the preceding blog post.) Since it was possible that we'd get a lot of territory from winning, (which we did) slavery would most certainly have to be dealt with. The Wilmot Proviso was introduced the year the war started, and it proposed that slavery be banned in any new territory we got from Mexico all together. During this time, a new party called the Liberty Party came to being, and proposed to abolish slavery from the USA completely, though where it already existed, it would be done away with over time and its proponents would be restricted in their political activities. Since this was a pretty radical stance, the Free-Soil Party came about, which would just ban slavery in all the territories. In 1848 the war ended, and we got a bunch of land from Mexico. The Democrat Lewis Cass (who was running for President that year) proposed that popular sovereignty be used in determining whether or not new states would be slave or free. This idea basically would let the people of a state vote on whether or not they wanted it to allow slavery or not.

In 1850, an agreement was finally reached over what to do with the land gained from the war in the Mexican Cession. This was the Compromise of 1850. It drove tensions between North and South way up high, and people were predicting civil war, and "trying their damnedest" to stop it from happening. The South wanted territory open to slavery. Senator John C. Calhoun, a Southerner and slave owner, argued that Congress had no rights over people's property in the territories. Slaves were property, so they could be taken wherever their owners wished. Abolitionists strongly objected to this, as they always had. The North wanted to suppress slavery, and the South felt threatened and hemmed in by industrial interests from the North. New states could tip the balance of power in the government, so each side wanted more on their own side.

Texas became a slave state, and California became free. The Utah and New Mexico Territories both became open to popular sovereignty. A stronger fugitive slave law was also called for in the 1850 compromise, and it would be enforced. The North was ticked off that they would have to comply, and the South felt that the whole deal wasn't really fair and that this was their only concession. This compromise also repealed the Missouri Compromise, since it opened up land to potentially get slavery that would have been guaranteed slavery-free since it was above the 36th parallel.

In 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act in which the states were opened to popular sovereignty (so that they could become states so a railroad could go through them), pro and anti-slavery forces clashed and created much violence and bloodshed, as well as political turmoil and pressure. It was pretty much a proxy war between anti-slavery North and pro-slavery South. In 1857 the Dred Scott Decision, by the Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, repealed the Missouri Compromise decision (again) from 1820 and said that all territory was legally open to slavery. This case made many people in the North extremely angry, and tensions rose higher and higher. The Whig Party actually died because sectional tension tore it apart, and the Republican Party rose up, (they originally formed to protest the Kansas-Nebraska Act.) The Democratic Party was also weakened, but did not suffer the fate of the Whigs. In 1859, abolitionist John Brown, who had fought against pro-slavery people in Kansas earlier, took over an arsenal and tried to lead a raid on Virginia that was supposed to end with a mass-freeing of the slaves in the whole South. It failed, but the South became extremely disturbed...more so than it was already.

In 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln becomes president, and the South is sure its fate is sealed, so they secede from the Union and form the Confederacy. The Civil War begins shortly after, and goes until 1865.

During the Civil War, African-Americans were used by the Union army (to a small extent, but they were distinguished!) but not by the Confederate Army. Early on, General Benjamin Butler ordered that all slaves be confiscated and not returned to their masters; they were now "contraband of war." He had the now former-slaves help work on fortifications for his troops. Later, the Congress would issue orders instructing that the whole Union army to do what Butler was doing, Fugitive Slave Law be damned. President Lincoln in 1863 then enacted the two part Emancipation Proclamation, which said that slaves in rebelling states were now free, voila! This got him lots of PR points, especially among already free African-Americans and former slaves.

When the Civil War ended in 1865, and the 13th Amendment went through Congress to outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude forever.This is the end of slavery in the USA, hoorah! What happens to the African-Americans, the South, and everyone else after 1865 will be covered in another blog post.

Thanks for reading! ^^

Mexican-American War Timeline

Here I've made a quick timeline of the Mexican-American War in a nutshell, and I also mention of 1848 election just to put it into perspective.

Image from Encyclopaedia Britannica

- 1845 -
1) Texas is admitted as a state.
2) The border should be at the Nueces River, but Texans (and many Americans + Polk ) claim it should be at the Rio Grande
3) Polk sends Slidell to try and buy Texas up to the Rio Grande
3) Mexico refuses and gets angry
4) Polk sends troops down to the Nueces River to "defend" the Texans against angry Mexico

- Late 1845 into 1846 -
5) Polk lets troops go into California to assist in the Bear-Flag Revolt, in which California declares itself independent from Mexico
6) Mexico gets freaked out because of the troops in California, orders them to leave, which they do not

- 1846 -
8 ) Polk gets angry at Mexico for this and commands his forces to go past the Nueces and to the Rio Grande (which is Mexican/disputed territory)
9) Some Americans die
10) Polk gets angrier, says "American blood has been shed on American soil", his true motives can now be seen, there's controversy.
- many people say that Polk wasn't telling the truth because it wasn't American soil, Lincoln writes his Spot Resolution asking Polk to clarify himself on this, expresses doubt over the fact that it was in truth, American soil (which it wasn't)

- 1846 into 1847 -
11) War happens, there's more controversy,
- Thoreau refuses to pay his taxes to protest the war, gets thrown in jail and bailed out, it inspires him to write 'Civil Disobedience'
12) Wilmot Proviso in August, more controversy
- proposes banning slavery all together in any territory that would be gained from Mexico
13) America wins, gets Texas set up at the boundary of the Rio Grande

- Early 1848 -
14) The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives America Texas to the Rio, New Mexico, California, ect.. (this is the Mexican Cession)
15) Polk gets angry at his ambassador Nicholas Trist for accepting those terms, because he wanted all of Mexico
16) Many tell him what an extraordinarily bad idea "all Mexico" would be
- senator John C. Calhoun opposes getting "all Mexico", as does Ralph Waldo Emerson and many Whigs
- reasons for not all Mexico include racism, and how there would be extreme difficulty in integrating the Mexican population with the US government/society (which wasn't gonna happen)
17) Polk gives in, abandons hopes to get all of Mexico
18) Expansion of slavery controversy increases

- Later in 1848 -
19) Election of 1848
20) Zachary Taylor from the Whig Party wins, beats Democrat Lewis Cass